|Statute by category||Citation||Summary|
|US - Tuna Fishing - Legislative History of the MMPA (1981)||1981 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1458||
This legislative history outlines the background and analysis of the 1981 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Of particular note is the discussion related to the "zero mortality" goal for dolphins in the tuna fishing industry.
|Criminal Code, Article 291 BIS and 291 TER||1984||Article 291 BIS establishes the penalties for cruelty or mistreatment against animals. Article 291 TER defines animal cruelty and mistreatment.|
|US - AWA - 1985 Public Law 99-198||1985 PL 99-198||The set of amendments that Congress adopted in December of 1985 focused almost entirely on the issue of animal research, (1) the minimum level of care is stated with more specificity, (2) animal research facilities are required to create Institutional Animal Committees, which include the presence of a public member from outside the facility, (3) trade secrets of research facilities are protected by a new section of the AWA.|
|UK - Research Animals - Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986||1986 CHAPTER 14||An Act to regulate the use of live vertebrate animals in research. Before a test on animals is given permission to proceed various licenses are required. These include: a personal license for each person carrying out the procedure, a project license for the programme of work, and an establishment license for the place in which the work is carried out. Each project must undergo a harm/ benefit analysis. This considers the potential benefits for humankind, the environment or other animals, against the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm which the experimental animals may experience. Licence holders who lawfully use animals under the Act are exempted from the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Section 24 of the Act makes it an offence to disclose any information relating to a regulated animal experiment which has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, given in confidence.|
|UK - Cruelty - Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988||1988 c.31||
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 is an act to protect horses, asses and mules against cruel tethering. This means in such conditions or such a manner to cause that animal unnecessary suffering.
|US - Tuna Fishing - Legislative History of the MMPA (1988)||1988 WL 169926||
This legislative history provides the background and section by section analysis of the 1988 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. As in 1981, the focus of the amendments rests with the mortality of dolphins from the tuna fishing industry.
|England, Wales & Scotland - Sales, live animal - The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990||1990 No. 2628||Rules covering the treatment of animals in markets, which make it an offence to cause or permit any injury or unnecessary suffering to an animal at a market. The Order also sets out specific arrangements in respect of penning, food and water and the care of young animals.|
|US - AWA - 1990 Public Law 101-624||1990 PL 101-624||Enacted November 28, 1990, this public law amends the Animal Welfare Act by establishing holding period for dogs and cats at shelters and other holding facilities before sale to dealers. It requires dealers to provide written certification regarding each animal's background to the recipient. Specific items included on the certificate are mechanisms of enforcement, injunctions, and penalties for violation.|
|UK - Dog - Breeding of Dogs Act 1991||1991 c. 64||
This Act extends the powers of inspection for the purposes of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 to premises not covered by a licence under that Act, thereby enabling local authorities to investigate suspicions that a dog breeding establishment is operating without the necessary license
|England, Wales & Scotland - Wildlife - Deer Act 1991||1991 CHAPTER 54||This Act makes it a an offence to take or intentionally kill certain deer during the closed season, and to kill any deer at night (with exceptions). Various methods used to take or kill deer are also prohibited.|
|UK - Dangerous Dogs - Dangerous Dogs Act 1991||1991 CHAPTER 65||
An Act to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes.
|England, Wales & Scotland - Wildlife, badgers - Protection of Badgers Act 1992||1992 CHAPTER 51||This Act prohibits the deliberate killing, injuring or capturing of a wild badger; and any interfering with badger setts (and the attempt to do so). General exemptions are provided, and licenses may be issued for the taking and killing of badgers (for example, as obtained for recent badger culls).|
|Northern Ireland - Wildlife - Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995||1995 No. 380||These Regulations prohibit the deliberate taking, injuring, killing, disturbing, possession, or trading of certain wild species (as scheduled) in Northern Ireland. It is also an offence to take the nests or eggs of wild birds.|
|UK - Slaughter - The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995||1995 No. 731||Under these Regulations it is an offence to cause, or to permit, unavoidable excitement, pain or suffering to any animal during restraint, stunning, slaughter or killing.|
|US - AWA - 1995 Public Law 104-88||1995 PL 104-88||Public Law 104-88 amended the Animal Welfare act by striking Interstate Commerce Commission and adding Surface Transportation Board.|
|England, Wales & Scotland - Wild animals - Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996||1996 CHAPTER 3||An Act providing protection for wild mammals against certain acts of deliberate harm. “Wild mammal” means any mammal which is not a “protected animal” within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Schedule 3, Section 13 of the 2006 Act). The following offences are specified in relation to any wild mammal: to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate. The offences require proof of intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.|
|UK - Dangerous Dogs - Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997||1997 CHAPTER 53||
This amendment affects the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Amendment Act allows a court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to destroy a prohibited dog (e.g., a "pit bull" type dog, Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, or any dog with the physical appearance, not necessarily breed, of a fighting dog).
|UK - Dog - Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999||1999 c. 11||
This Act amends and extends certain enactments relating to the commercial breeding and sale of dogs; regulates the welfare of dogs kept in commercial breeding establishments; extends powers of inspection; and establishes records of dogs kept at such establishments. This Act substantially amended the Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991.
|DE - Assistance Animal - Delaware's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||2 Del.C. § 1917; 16 Del.C. § 3042F; 16 Del.C. § 3056F; 16 Del.C. § 9501 - 9506; 21 Del.C. § 4144; 6 Del.C. § 4501 - 4516; 31 Del.C. § 2117||The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.|
|OK - Ecoterrorism - G-1. Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act||2 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-103 to 107||This article is known as the “Oklahoma Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act." A person commits an offense if, without the consent of the owner, the person acquires or otherwise exercises control over an animal facility, an animal from an animal facility, or other property from an animal facility with the intent to deprive the owner of such facility, animal, or property and to disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Violation is a felony and results in a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 3 years imprisonment.|
|OK - Horse - § 6-192. Horse meat||2 Okl. St. Ann. § 6-192, § 6-207||It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer or exhibit for sale, or have in his or her possession with intent to sell, any quantity of horsemeat for human consumption in Oklahoma.|
|IL - Disaster - Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act. 3305/4. Definitions.||20 I.L.C.S. 3305/4||The Illinois' Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act defines Emergency Operations Plan as the written plan of the State and political subdivisions describing the organization, mission, and functions of the government and supporting services for responding to and recovering from disasters and shall include plans that take into account the needs of those individuals with household pets and service animals following a major disaster or emergency.|
|PA - Trust - § 7738. Trust for care of animal - UTC 408||20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7738||In 2006, Pennsylvania became the 32nd state to adopt a pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.|
|VT - Swine, feral - § 3350. The disposition of feral swine||20 V.S.A. § 3350||This law, enacted in 2020, authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to destroy or euthanize a feral swine in accordance with the requirements of 10 V.S.A. § 4709(f).|
|VT - Impound - Sub Chapter 2. Pounds and Impounds.||20 V.S.A. § 3381 - 3485||The following Vermont statutes require that each organized Vermont town maintain a pound or else the town will be fined $30.00. The statutes also provide provisions for impounding an animal, retrieving an impounded animal, failing to retrieve an impounded animal, and assessing damages of an impounded animal, amongst other topics.|
|VT - Dogs, Wolf-hybrids - Consolidated Dog Laws||20 V.S.A. § 3511 - 3513; 3541 - 3817, 3901 - 3915, 4301 - 4304; 10 V.S.A. § 5001 - 5007, § 4748||These Vermont statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing and control laws for both domestic dogs and wolf-hybrids, laws concerning the sale of dogs, and various wildlife/hunting laws that implicate dogs.|
|VT - Lost dog - Article 2. Killing Unlicensed Dogs; Subchapter 5. Control of Rabies||20 V.S.A. § 3621 - 3626; 20 V.S.A. § 3806 - 3809||These Vermont statute provide the law for seizure, confinement of, and destruction of dogs and domestic wolf-hybrids. It also includes a warrant form necessary for local authorities to seize and impound an offending dog or wolf-hybrid.|
|UK - Fur - Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000||2000 CHAPTER 33||
An Act to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; to provide for the making of payments in respect of the related closure of certain businesses; and for connected purposes.
|Scotland - Wild Mammals - Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002||2002 asp 6||An Act to prohibit deliberate hunting of wild mammals with dogs. The Act also makes it an offence for an owner or occupier of land to knowingly allow another person to hunt wild mammals with dogs on their land. Stalking and flushing is exempted in certain circumstances, for example, in order to protect livestock, providing food for animal or consumption, or controlling pest species.|
|US - AWA - 2002 Public Law 107-171||2002 PL 107-171||Enacted January 23, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act changed the definition of "animal" in the Animal Welfare Act to specifically exclude birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research. The law also addressed animal fighting ventures by making it a misdemeanor to ship a bird in interstate commerce for fighting purposes, or to sponsor to exhibit a bird in a fight that had been shipped for such purposes.|
|AR - Initiatives - Proposed Initiated Act 1 (cruelty)||2002 Proposed Initiative Act 1||This ballot proposal sought to amend Arkansas' Animal Cruelty Act by making the knowing torture, mutilation, maiming, burning, poisoning, malicious killing, starving, or disfiguring of a non-exempted animal a crime known as "Aggravated Animal Cruelty." This offense would then become a Class D felony subject to enumerated penalties, including psychological counseling and forfeiture of the animal in question. This measure failed at the polls with 38% voting Yes and 62% voting No.|
|Northern Ireland - Zoo Licensing - The Zoo Licensing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003||2003 No. 115||Regulations licensing the conduct of zoo facilities in Northern Ireland (similar to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 that applies to England, Wales and Scotland). Covers permanent establishments where animals are on display to the public, for seven days a year or more. License requirements address matters of animal welfare, conservation and public education.|
|Scotland - Animal Welfare - 2003 Proposal||2003 Proposal, Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912||For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The Scottish Executive (SE) issued a consultation paper on 21st March 2003 on proposals to amend the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. These proposals were aimed at addressing the specific problem of the lack of statutory powers available to local authorities to remove neglected farm livestock, which are suffering or at risk of suffering, to a place of safely. The responses from a number of organisations to that paper have shown a clear desire for a much wider reform of our existing animal welfare legislation. Ministers now wish to consider expanding the proposed amendment to the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 and to introduce wider legislation aimed at consolidating and updating much of the existing animal welfare legislation in Scotland. The purpose of any new legislation will be to prevent cruelty to any animal and to set out the obligations of people to promote the welfare of all animals (including domestic pets) for which they are either permanently or temporarily responsible. This will include owning, managing, or in any way keeping any animal, including buying, selling and transporting.|
|Scotland - Wildlife - Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004||2004 asp 6||This Act makes amendments to the protection of wildlife under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981, and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in respect of Scotland. Wild animal protection is extended to include reckless as well as intentional acts. The Act also makes it an offence to disturb or harass a dolphin, whale or basking shark, and amends the provisions for enforcement.|
|AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 3 (bear baiting or feeding)||2004 Ballot Measure 3||This Alaska ballot measure was defeated in the November 2004 election. It would have made it illegal for a person to bait or intentionally feed a bear for purposes of hunting, viewing, or photographing the bear. A person who violated this proposed law would have been guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. It failed with only 43.3% of the vote.|
|England and Wales - Hunting, mammals - Hunting Act 2004||2004 CHAPTER 37||An Act controlling the hunting of wild animals with dogs, and prohibiting hare coursing. The hare coursing prohibition covers facilitating, attending, spectating or otherwise. Schedule 1 of the Act provides for exemptions to hunting wild mammals with dogs, to include: stalking, or flushing a wild mammal out of cover provided that this is done to prevent or reduce potential damage elsewhere, for example to livestock or crops; to obtain meat for human or animal consumption or; participation in a field trial competition. For this hunting to be exempt, the stalking or flushing must not involve more than two dogs, or take place on land without the owner’s permission. Further exemption requirements are that one dog may go below ground only, to flush or dig out the mammal in circumstances where the purpose is to prevent or reduce serious damage to game birds or wild birds. Further, conditions require that the mammal must subsequently be shot as soon as possible after being found or flushed. Other exceptions include the hunting of rabbits or rats with dogs.|
|England - Fur - The Mink Keeping (Prohibition) (England) Order 2004||2004 No. 100||An Order imposing an absolute prohibition upon the keeping of mink in England.|
|US - Rodent - Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003||2004 P.L. 108-16; 2004 P.L. 105-322||
Nutria are large, semi-aquatic rodents that are native to South America and have invaded the marshland of certain U.S. states. There are no natural predators to control nutria, no market for their fur, and private trappers have failed to keep pace with the animals' ability to reproduce. P.L. 108-16 of 2003 and P.L. 105-322 of 1998 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the States of Maryland and Louisiana for a program to implement measures to: (1)eradicate nutria in Maryland; (2)eradicate or control nutria in Louisiana and other States; and (3) restore marshland damaged by nutria.
|US - MBTA - Senate Bill 2547 An Act to Amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)||2004 Senate Bill 2547||
This Act, now known as the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA), revamps the MBTA by excluding species of birds that are "non-native" to the United States. Under the bill, a bird species shall not be treated as native to the United States if the species occurs in the United States solely as a result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introduction after the date of adoption of the treaty in 1918. As a result, some 94 species of birds currently protected under the treaty would lose their protected status.
|EU - Transport - 2004/544/EC: Council Decision on the signing of the European Convention for the protection of animals during in||2004/544/EC||
This Council Decision directs the signing the of the European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport.
|AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 204 (inhumane confinement)||2006 Arizona Proposition 204||This comprises Proposition 204 also known as the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act. A "yes" vote shall have the effect of establishing misdemeanor fines and penalties for tethering or confining a pregnant pig or a calf raised for veal for all or a majority of the day in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down and fully extending its limbs or turning around freely but excepts transportation of the animal, rodeo and fair exhibitions, lawful slaughters, research, veterinary purposes and the seven day period before a pig's expected date of giving birth. The measure passed with 62% voting "yes."|
|Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006||2006 asp 11||An Act establishing penalties for engaging in certain activities that are considered detrimental to animal welfare in Scotland. Part 1 of the Act contains detailed provisions concerning animal health and preventing the spread of disease. Activities that constitute offenses under Part 2 of the Act include: causing an animal unnecessary suffering, mutilating an animal’s body, docking a dog’s tail (with certain limited exceptions), administering a poisonous or injurious substance to an animal, and engaging in or attending animal fighting. Nothing in the Act applies to anything lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 or to anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing.|
|GA - Initiatives - Georgia Amendment 2 (right to hunt)||2006 Georgia Amendment 2||This Georgia constitutional amendment was presented to voters on the 2006 ballot. The measure preserves the state's tradition of hunting and fishing for the public good. Amendment 2 passed by a margin of 81% to 19%.|
|MI - Initiatives - Michigan Proposal 3 (mourning dove hunting)||2006 Michigan Proposal 3||
In 2006, Michigan voters were presented with Proposal 3 that would have legalized the hunting of mourning doves by adding the species to the state game list. The measure was defeated by a 69 to 31 percent vote.
|England - Transport - The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006||2006 No. 3260||Regulations to provide general protections to vertebrate and cold blooded invertebrate animals during transport. It is an offence to transport an animal in a way which causes, or is likely to cause, injury or unnecessary suffering to that animal. Similar legislation is in place for the rest of the UK (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.)|
|England - Animal Welfare - The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007||2007 No. 1100||These Regulations specify the procedures that are exempt from the Section 5 mutilation prohibition of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Procedures include: ear tagging for identification and castration for control of reproduction, for certain species. Anaesthetics, and other requirements, are also set out concerning certain species.|
|England - Dogs - The Docking of Working Dogs' Tails (England) Regulations 2007||2007 No. 1120||
These Regulations exempt hunt, spaniel and terrier breeds from the tail docking prohibition under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, provided that certain conditions are met. Tail docking must be carried out by a veterinary surgeon, and not past 5 days old.
|England - Farm animals - Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007||2007 No. 2078||These Regulations set minimum welfare standards for farm animals generally whilst kept and reared on a farm. Some more specific provisions address laying hens, calves confined for rearing and fattening, cattle, pigs, boars, sows, piglets and rabbits. These 2007 Regulations repeal the 2000 Regulations, and also repeal the 2002 and 2003 Regulation Amendments.|
|US - AWA - 2007 Public Law110-22||2007 PL 110-22||The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 was signed into law on May 3, 2007. The law upgrades current penalties by creating felony-level jail time (up to 3 years) for violations of the federal animal fighting law, and it also prohibits interstate and foreign commerce of cockfighting weapons (e.g., knife, gaff, etc.).|
|EU - Farming - Council Directive 2007/43/EC laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production||2007/43/EC||
Community measures regulate the management of holdings that rear chickens for meat production in order to improve animal welfare, particularly for chickens kept on intensive farms.